--- Comment #7 from dominic dot quiet at gmail dot com 2006-03-12 22:26
---
Created an attachment (id=11034)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11034&action=view)
My new results without -marh=athlon-xp
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26656
--- Comment #6 from dominic dot quiet at gmail dot com 2006-03-12 22:25
---
Created an attachment (id=11033)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11033&action=view)
Fixed benchmark
I fixed my benchmark. You are right about the condition always being true after
--- Comment #4 from dominic dot quiet at gmail dot com 2006-03-12 21:41
---
Created an attachment (id=11032)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11032&action=view)
My results with -march=athlon-xp
The behavior of the ?: compared to without -march=athlon-xp m
--- Comment #3 from dominic dot quiet at gmail dot com 2006-03-12 21:31
---
Created an attachment (id=11031)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11031&action=view)
My results without -march=athlon-xp
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26656
--- Comment #2 from dominic dot quiet at gmail dot com 2006-03-12 21:23
---
Created an attachment (id=11030)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11030&action=view)
Benchmark
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26656
tion flaw on conditionnal set of a bit.
Product: gcc
Version: 3.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dominic dot quie
